Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
been done before. >> ronald reagan. >> now you're jack kennedy. >> ronald reagan. >> twitter was atwitter about that. that comment got a noticeable reaction from the group of undecided voters i watched during the debate last night. see it blown up there in the bottom of the screen. here is the problem, both kennedy and reagan working in a different time and place. to start, when both kennedy and reagan took office, individual tax rates not even in the ballpark of what we have now. kennedy's plan, enacted after his death, took the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 71% over a two-year period. lots of loopholes, but the growth argument, gdp rose by barely a percent during that time. isn't much when the economy was growing at a rate like china's, but the u.s. was at the time. they got a boost, but not much of one. ronald reagan's first big tax cut went into effect, and the economy did surge. economic growth went from 4.9% to north of 8%. year three, not so impressive. look at quarters, there were some drops. for perspective, today, the top marge call tax rate is 30%, not
. that was ronald reagan, who won the election with a rate of 7.4%. so, the question is, can mr. obama win one like the giper or is the number still bad enough to doom his hopes? well, cue mitt romney. that's what happened today. his team is furiously pointing out how many people are underemployed. last month's household survey found 582,000 of the jobs created involved part time workers who wanted to be full time. plus, no one should forget all the people who have stopped looking for work. romney says this new number or not is not what a recovery looks like. >> the truth is, if the same share of people were participating in the workforce, today is on the day the president got elected, our unemployment rate would be around 11%. >> "outfront" tonight, ali velshi, ethan and a former staff member for president obama's national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform, daniel mitchell, senior fellow at the cato institut alan, the numbers sound good. are they? >> i don't care. i'm going to go one further than erin. not only does the absolute number of the unemployment percentage not matter. i don'
was your first vote for president? >> ronald reagan. so, actually, i have a photograph of my grandfather, my father, my brother and myself all voting together at the same time, so -- >> it's a family tradition. so, you take this seriously. >> it was always a, you know, a big deal in our family. >> you voted for president obama last time around. what are the final considerations? >> issues around the federal government spending, how it affects our business. so, it is my life blood. and my future. >> dyer's business partner is -- she knows just how devastating these cuts could be to loudon. >> the dysfunctional process that brought us to the brink of this problem, which is going to be as serious a problem for our region as the fallout of the car industry was to detroit. it will be small businesses like ours that are going to be hit the most. it's projected 2 million jobs will be lost, half of which will be from small companies will be hit earliest and hardest. it's going to be very unfortunate. >> she sees this as a symptom of the dysfunction of congress. >> when you start asking questions
-- >> reagan. >> oh, now, you're jack kennedy. >> ronald reagan. >> twitter was all a twitter about that. the line generated 275 tweets a minute. kind of crazy. there's a noticeable reaction from the group of virginia undecided voters that i watched during the debate. you can see it blown up there at the bottom of the screen. but here's the problem. both kennedy and reagan were working in a different time and place, so to start with, when both kennedy and reagan took office, individual tax rates were not even in the ballpark of what we're dealing with now. they make france like like a low tax regime. kennedy's plan took the rate to 70% over a two-year period. lots of loopholes, but the growth argument, gdp rose during that time, but wasn't much when the economy was growing at a rate like china's, so they got a boost, but not much. as for reagan, his first big tax cut went into effect in 1981 and reduced the rate to 50%. over the first two years, the economy did surge. that's impressive. year three though, not so impressive. today, the top marginal tax rate is at 30%. not like you're at 7
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)